Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

ERC-1462: Base Security Token. #1462

Merged
merged 9 commits into from
Oct 15, 2018
Merged

Conversation

xlab
Copy link
Contributor

@xlab xlab commented Sep 30, 2018

An extension to ERC-20 standard token that provides compliance with securities regulations and legal enforceability.

Abstract

This EIP defines a minimal set of additions to the default token standard such as ERC-20, that allows for compliance with domestic and international legal requirements. Such requirements include KYC (Know Your Customer) and AML (Anti Money Laundering) regulations, and the ability to lock tokens for an account, and restrict them from transfer due to a legal dispute. Also the ability to attach additional legal documentation, in order to set up a dual-binding relationship between the token and off-chain legal entities.

The scope of this standard is being kept as narrow as possible to avoid restricting potential use-cases of this base security token. Any additional functionality and limitations not defined in this standard may be enforced on per-project basis.

Join the discussion

https://ethereum-magicians.org/t/erc-1462-base-security-token/1501

@xlab xlab changed the title Base security token. ERC-1462: Base Security Token. Sep 30, 2018
@Arachnid Arachnid merged commit 512b917 into ethereum:master Oct 15, 2018
@kenmistry
Copy link

kenmistry commented Mar 14, 2019

For instance, ERC-1411 uses dependency on ERC-1410 but it falls out of the "security tokens" scope.

hi there, i came across this standard that can facilitate the attachment of a document on a token. i am wondering how was the "security tokens" scope defined in the statement above, and was it because a feature is deemed missing or not fully developed. i would be happy to go through any reading material for this. many thanks!

@xlab
Copy link
Contributor Author

xlab commented Mar 17, 2019

@kenmistry hi, nice find, I actually wrote this statement because at the moment of writing it was not clear why tokens must be partially fungible. Why do we need tranches and how they are related to securities. From the current perspective I understand, that this might be useful for post-sale compliance in case of "restricted" securities obtained trough Reg D, see Rule 144.

I still think that such regulations can be respected without this feature. The flow is tightly integrated with offline processes, it's much easier to keep a standalone registry contract that keeps track of tranches, instead of embedding this logic into token itself.

Rule 144

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

3 participants